2 included Catjia's comment
source | link

The reasons for down-voting are too numerous and complex to be reliably and accurately discriminated, some down-votes are justified, others not at all. Losing reputation, and losing a single point, is a compromise, a Keep It Simple approach.

Here are various reasons for down-voting, gathered from common sens and from answers and comments above, arbitrarily ranked from those callingcalling for more than 1 point in reputation loss to those which would benefit fromcalling for no reputation loss (or even a gain):

  • retaliation: a user feels offended by some comments, or finds out who down-voted him/her and goes on a down-vote rampage
  • indiscriminate down-vote: a user is in a bad mood, is upset, irritated, having a bad day, doesn't like a user, the answer...
  • SPAM: question or answer is clearly written with a will to spam the site, it's helping the community to shadow these by a down vote (SPAM should be flagged, edit: flagging a post as SPAM automatically downvotes the post at no reputation loss downvote, from Catjia's comment)
  • the answer contains offending wording (they can be flagged too)
  • the question has been already asked, shows no effort from the user to search by him/herself
  • the answer given is off-topic (similar to SPAM but in a more subtle way)
  • the answer given is misleading or plain wrong

I'd sure support a no-reputation-loss when down-voting spam, and even a reputation gain when down-voting a misleading or wrong answer with a justification for the down-vote; someone who aggressively down vote for no given reason should lose more than 1 point.

But unless SE introduces Artificial Intelligence to analyze users behavior and the content of their justification for down-vote so the system can sort legitimate down-votes from those given in pure revenge, a -1 loss is a good compromise.

The reasons for down-voting are too numerous and complex to be reliably and accurately discriminated, some down-votes are justified, others not at all. Losing reputation, and losing a single point, is a compromise, a Keep It Simple approach.

Here are various reasons for down-voting, arbitrarily ranked from those calling for more than 1 in reputation loss to those which would benefit from no reputation loss (or even a gain):

  • retaliation: a user feels offended by some comments, or finds out who down-voted him/her and goes on a down-vote rampage
  • indiscriminate down-vote: a user is in a bad mood, is upset, irritated, having a bad day, doesn't like a user, the answer...
  • SPAM: question or answer is clearly written with a will to spam the site, it's helping the community to shadow these by a down vote (SPAM should be flagged)
  • the answer contains offending wording (they can be flagged too)
  • the question has been already asked, shows no effort from the user to search by him/herself
  • the answer given is off-topic (similar to SPAM but in a more subtle way)
  • the answer given is misleading or plain wrong

I'd sure support a no-reputation-loss when down-voting spam, and even a reputation gain when down-voting a misleading or wrong answer with a justification for the down-vote; someone who aggressively down vote for no given reason should lose more than 1 point.

But unless SE introduces Artificial Intelligence to analyze users behavior and the content of their justification for down-vote so the system can sort legitimate down-votes from those given in pure revenge, a -1 loss is a good compromise.

The reasons for down-voting are too numerous and complex to be reliably and accurately discriminated, some down-votes are justified, others not at all. Losing reputation, and losing a single point, is a compromise, a Keep It Simple approach.

Here are various reasons for down-voting, gathered from common sens and from answers and comments above, arbitrarily ranked from those calling for more than 1 point in reputation loss to those calling for no reputation loss (or even a gain):

  • retaliation: a user feels offended by some comments, or finds out who down-voted him/her and goes on a down-vote rampage
  • indiscriminate down-vote: a user is in a bad mood, is upset, irritated, having a bad day, doesn't like a user, the answer...
  • SPAM: question or answer is clearly written with a will to spam the site, it's helping the community to shadow these by a down vote (SPAM should be flagged, edit: flagging a post as SPAM automatically downvotes the post at no reputation loss downvote, from Catjia's comment)
  • the answer contains offending wording (they can be flagged too)
  • the question has been already asked, shows no effort from the user to search by him/herself
  • the answer given is off-topic (similar to SPAM but in a more subtle way)
  • the answer given is misleading or plain wrong

I'd sure support a no-reputation-loss when down-voting spam, and even a reputation gain when down-voting a misleading or wrong answer with a justification for the down-vote; someone who aggressively down vote for no given reason should lose more than 1 point.

But unless SE introduces Artificial Intelligence to analyze users behavior and the content of their justification for down-vote so the system can sort legitimate down-votes from those given in pure revenge, a -1 loss is a good compromise.

1
source | link

The reasons for down-voting are too numerous and complex to be reliably and accurately discriminated, some down-votes are justified, others not at all. Losing reputation, and losing a single point, is a compromise, a Keep It Simple approach.

Here are various reasons for down-voting, arbitrarily ranked from those calling for more than 1 in reputation loss to those which would benefit from no reputation loss (or even a gain):

  • retaliation: a user feels offended by some comments, or finds out who down-voted him/her and goes on a down-vote rampage
  • indiscriminate down-vote: a user is in a bad mood, is upset, irritated, having a bad day, doesn't like a user, the answer...
  • SPAM: question or answer is clearly written with a will to spam the site, it's helping the community to shadow these by a down vote (SPAM should be flagged)
  • the answer contains offending wording (they can be flagged too)
  • the question has been already asked, shows no effort from the user to search by him/herself
  • the answer given is off-topic (similar to SPAM but in a more subtle way)
  • the answer given is misleading or plain wrong

I'd sure support a no-reputation-loss when down-voting spam, and even a reputation gain when down-voting a misleading or wrong answer with a justification for the down-vote; someone who aggressively down vote for no given reason should lose more than 1 point.

But unless SE introduces Artificial Intelligence to analyze users behavior and the content of their justification for down-vote so the system can sort legitimate down-votes from those given in pure revenge, a -1 loss is a good compromise.